Today, I learned that former classmate of mine at the University of Michigan has started a blog for startups dealing with intellectual property issues.

Jill Bowman is a great person and her blog is not only informative, but is also written in her voice, not legalese.  (Her husband says it’s too “girly” but I totally disagree). 

Jill promises to dish on IP “train wrecks” (her words) that she’s seen over the past decade and hopefully her wisdom can save some folks future headaches.

She also promises to talk about costs savings in IP controversies and expose how some big firms are ripping off their clients. 

Her first post is Ten Smart Reasons to Learn About IP Law.  Jill, welcome to the blogosphere.  We are happy to have you. 

One of my former students, Daniel Fredrickson has started a blog chronicling his quest to secure employment in what seems to be the toughest legal hiring environment ever.

He’s a smart guy and I’m really excited to see what he writes about his travails.  He promises that he’ll mix in some fun along the way, too.

Welcome to the blogosphere, Daniel, and if there are any hiring partners out there looking for a potential first year startup lawyer, let Daniel know!

My friends at LegalRiver.com have released two document generators for quickly and easily assembling standard terms of service and privacy policies.

Much like other document generators, you fill in a few pieces of relevant info and “boom” (to quote John Madden, whom I am sure is following this blog closely) you are done.

Check the terms of service generator here and the privacy policy generator here.

*** After posting this blog a friend of mine sent this to me:  “Confidentially: for these two items alone, I received a bill from a law firm (that will remain nameless), for more than $10,000. Yup.”

I must be on the rubber chicken circuit again, as I have yet another talk coming up – this one to (gasp!) lawyers.  If you are in the Denver area and want to attend, here are the details.  I might even opine on Law Firm 2.0 if asked.

COLORADO BAR ASSOCIATION – SECURITIES SUBSECTION LUNCHEON

WHERE:  The Warwick Hotel, 1776 Grant Street, Denver, Colorado 80203

WHEN:  Thursday, January 21, 2010, Noon to 1:15 p.m.

TOPIC: “Hot topics in private company securities law:  a view from a recovering lawyer and current venture capitalist”

SPEAKER:    Jason Mendelson, Co-Founder and Managing Director, Foundry Group

RESERVATIONS: Cost:  $28.00 Luncheon Attendee, $20.00 Conference Call Attendee

Registration Deadline:  Noon on Wednesday, January 20, 2010.

No refunds will be available for cancellations after that date or for no-shows.

Reservations can be made by calling the Colorado Bar Association, 303-860-1115 x 727, or by e-mailing mailto: lunches@cobar.org .  Please specify if you would like a vegetarian lunch. If leaving a message, please spell your name, specify that you are attending the Securities Subsection Luncheon, and include your phone number.  Checks should be made payable to: Colorado Bar Association.

When registering for the call-in program please indicate that you would like to participate by phone.  The day before the program we will email registered call-in participants the materials & CLE affidavit as well as the call in number. 

Submitted for one general CLE credit.

SRS released their annual video holiday greeting.  If you are trying to figure out what the Queen of England, George Washington and Kanye West all have in common, you have to check it out.  Nice job guys!

Editors of the ABA Journal today announced they have selected Mendelson’s Musings as one of the top 100 best websites by lawyers, for lawyers.

That’s pretty cool, especially since I don’t focus all of my efforts on the legal profession.  But to quote them:

“Mendelson’s Musings drew our admiration this year when Boulder, Colo., lawyer/venture capitalist Jason Mendelson tackled a weighty project: Law Firm 2.0. Over a 10-month period, Mendelson discussed frustrations with start-up lawyers, re-architecting law firms and what clients need to do to get law firms to implement change.”

Now comes the fun part, as I can be voted best in category.  If you like to vote for me, please go here. 

Thanks to all of you who support my efforts here.

Several of my Seattle friends pointed out that Senator Dodd has proposed changes to the regulations that govern angel and VC investments.

Every time a VC or angel investor participates in a venture financing, there is a Reg D statement that is filled.  Currently, it’s a federal file that you file with the feds and then each of the states involved (company domicile, investor state, etc.) accepts the Reg D form. This is good because companies only have to pay to comply with one set of rules, rather than many.  The Dodd legislation would repeal the existing federal preemption of state regulation over “accredited investor” securities offerings. States would then, presumably, have to come up with their own rules and standards. 

It is important to have uniform regulation of securities offerings.  Otherwise the costs increase for everyone as startups are required to comply with differing state-by-state laws.  As state laws drift away from each other, eventually this might include startups having to hire multiple legal counsel.  It’s simply a waste of good capital, unless you are a lawyer who wants to make more money.  (In all fairness, the folks who pointed this all out to me ARE lawyers and aren’t concerned with billable hours, rather their clients). 

I am not sure why Senator Dodd would want to change this.  I have no experience in anything going “wrong” with the current regime.  It has been around for decades and the system works well.  There is no compelling reason to add these new costs to the companies and their investors.  I’d like to know what is driving this proposal. 

If you agree, there is an online petition.  Please sign at http://gopetition.com/online/32354.html.

Thanks to our friend Phil Weiser, who is at the US Department of Justice for the next couple of years, Brad, Amy and I were invited to watch the Bilski oral argument at the Supreme Court.  If you don’t believe me, here is a picture of Brad and I on the steps of the courthouse (wearing suits, no less). 

Having been a lawyer, I’ve always held deep opinions about the Supreme Court, many of which were obliterated today.  I’d always imagined that the justices would be old, out of touch, disengaged, dry and not be able to really explore the weight of the issues in oral arguments given only one hour is allocated per hearing. 

If we go to the scorecard:

Old: yep

Out of touch: definitely not

Disengaged: absolute not, so long as you don’t count Justice Thomas who looked like he’d rather be elsewhere and never said anything

Dry: no:  Justic Breyer was cracking jokes, but Chief Justice Roberts is not exactly a humorless judge

Exploration: perhaps most surprisingly, an hour was more than enough

Final Tally:  Jason’s Preconceived Notions: 1, New Found Opinions: 4

For those of you who don’t know, the Bilski argument addressed whether or not business methods are patentable.  Anyone who follows my blog knows that I staunchly favor the abolishment of business method patents and also feel that most software patents are contrary to proper innovation policy.  The judges allowed the Bilski camp about 2 minutes of uninterrupted argument and then launched directly into questioning.  What was impressive was how direct and well prepared they were as they explored the key elements of the issues surrounding business method patents.

To me, it was apparent that the justices had grave concerns about the validity of these types of patents.  In fact, when the rebuttal from the government came (on the side of getting rid of business method patents), the justices pushed him on why software should be patentable.  The lawyer representing them (Malcolm Stewart) ducked and weaved as best as he could, but it felt like the court would have thrown out both business method patents AND software if he had stood up and said “they should go too, your honor.”

My bet is that business method patents are gone.  What will be very interesting will be their language regarding software patents, as software validity wasn’t part of the case, but clearly on the justices’ minds.

All in all, I was massively impressed with the mental horsepower of the court and their ability to parse a very complicated subject in a short amount of time.  Justice Breyer stood out as really engaged, but they all (but Thomas on this particular day) were impressive individuals.  Thanks Phil.  This was really a treat. 

One item to note:  if you get the chance to go to the Supreme Court, their cafe is mostly forgettable.  Don’t get the French dressing.  Way too much sugar.  (Picture of Phil and I below at the cafe).

Are you a lawyer who doesn’t want to work at a law firm anymore but who still wants to work on really interesting transactions?  Shareholder Representative Services (SRS) is looking to hire someone to work as a stockholder representative on its transactions. 

They’re getting a lot of new deals and need another person to help manage the workflow. The job is perfect for someone with big law firm experience who likes the cerebral challenge that comes with M&A but is looking for something outside of the law firm environment. 

SRS works with the top VCs and attorneys on some of the highest profile private M&A deals in the country, so you’d be networking with the best in the business.  Specifically, they need someone who can review and negotiate the transaction documents, negotiate the terms of their engagement, and manage any issues that may arise after closing. 

Ideally, the person would work in Colorado, but San Francisco is an option too.  Minimum of 4 years of big law firm experience required, preferably with at least some M&A experience. 

If interested, send a resume to Paul Koenig at pkoenig@shareholderrep.com.

As part of my recent open letter to the President on innovation, one of the topics that I wrote about was that of creating a special type of visa to allow foreign-born entrepreneurs to start companies in the U.S. 

Today, my partner Brad has a great post on his specific guidelines of recommendation for a program like this.